Solo

No, Jeffrey, what needs to proven first by James A. Dunn, and whoever else sits on the "no-preexistent-Christ-in-Paul" bandwagon, is that Paul did not say God sent his Son. Because for them to claim that Paul meant to imply that at the point of the Son's sending only God existed, is utterly baseless and preposterous.

Jiri

Soul Invictus

I was speaking of the details. Notice my 'holy women at the cross' entry.

Forgive my imprecision though.

jgibson000

It's James D.G. Dunn

Really? I should have thought that what needs to be proven is your hidden assumption and implicit claim that "sending" language necessarily implies "pre-existence", let alone that assertions about a being's or an object's "pre-existence" necessarily and always meant actual existence from or before the beginning of time. Does it? In Paul?

Why? Because you say so?

Would you care to mount an argument for this claim rather than deliver it as a fiat?

Have you read the section on Gal. 4:4a in Dunn's Christology in the Making (or via: amazon.co.uk) or in his commentary on Galatians or in that of, say, Longenecker or of Martyn that deals with the question of what OTE DE HLQEN TO PLHROMA TOU XRONOU, EXAPESTEILEON hO QEOS TON hUION AUTOU means?

If so, what is it specifically within their arguments about the meaning of this expression that in your eyes they got wrong?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Actually you spoke of the absence of mention of both "the crucifixion" (your # 1) and "the women at the cross" (your # 5). So it's not a matter of your being imprecise. It is (or it certainly seems to be) s a matter of your moving the goal post once a claim of yours has been shown to be shoddy.

In any case, you might want to note, with respect to "holy" women at the cross, it's not only Paul who doesn't mention this. Neither Mark nor Luke do, either.

Nor do Luke, Mark or John mention your # 3 (Herod and his persecution of Jesus's earthly parents).

As to Paul and your #s 1 and 2 (the Crucifixion and Pilate or the Romans, respectively), what about 1 Cor. 2:8?

And as to Paul and your # 6 (No personal events mentioned in the gospel's account of the passion), which "personal events" do you have in mind?

Jeffrey Gibson

aa5874

After reading thousands of posts, it is clear that neither Jesus Christ nor Saul/Paul can be placed in history. Those who support their historicity blatantly refuse to give any credible information to bolster their view, and instead, only refute those who are of a different view.

The cold hard fact is that refutation, even if successful, does not determine the historicity of Jesus Christ or Saul/Paul. Those who support the mythical Jesus Christ and the mythical Saul/Paul have no credible evidence or knowledge of the mythical duo, we can only speculate.

It is very laborious and time consuming to constantly see the same refutations, thousands upon thousands, with not one shred of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ or Saul/Paul.

It appears to me that some people use this site only to display their literary skills.

I am waiting for the day when someone can demostrate to me that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul actually lived.

jgibson000

And we're waiting the day when you abandon your double standards and obtain a decent and informed sense of what constitutes "evidence".

JG

Soul Invictus

Yeah. Okay. Whatever floats your boat. There's no need for me to move anything. You could say the same thing about the Romans if that's the position you wish to take.

That's fine. I didn't say that the gospels did. Besides, it has nothing to do with Paul's omission...who is someone purportedly to have known him.

Right. There is plenty of discussion regarding the gospels' lack of mentioning as well. Again, Paul was to have known Jesus Jesus, so it is compelling why his material on him is near non-existent. That the gospels are also lacking is material for the entire 'existence of Jesus' discussion. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but my posts, and the recent posts thereof was addressing Paul's specific omissions.

This is what I mentioned above about the details.

I would say any of them would be okay (trial,betrayal, characters involved..etc)

So am I...and many others for that matter.

aa5874

You know what is evidence, and have a decent and informed sense of its constitution, and have displayed no characteristics of double standards.

Now, I am still waiting for such a person to demonstrate that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul actually lived, instead of thousands and thousands of refutations that go into massive circlles of oblivion.

If every other view is wrong, why is yours right? Evidence please.

jgibson000

So that we do not go round in "circlles" of any sort, let alone "circlles of oblivion" (whatever that means), I suggest that first you

(1) finally state explicitly both what you consider to be the kinds of things that would or do demonstrate anyone's existence, as well as what the minimum amount of these things are that to you is necessary to do so, and then

(2) give us a comparison of all of this with what professional historians state is such "evidence" and the amount of it required to establish the historicity of an ancient figure.,

This way we might see not only (a) if your views on these things are consistent with and/or are more or less stringent than what rational people accept as reasonable in this regard, but (b) whether the cause of the going round in "circlles" you say is happening lies with you, not with anyone who offers you "refutations".

JG

aa5874

You have already stated that I have double standards that I need to abandon. Even my sense of the constitution of evidence has been questioned. I have already stated I have no evidence that Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul ever lived.

I hope you understand what no evidence means. I have nothing, zero, a big fat O, nada on Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul.

Anymore questions?